Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,821 Year: 3,078/9,624 Month: 923/1,588 Week: 106/223 Day: 4/13 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Corrupting the Old Testament at all costs?
Brian
Member (Idle past 4960 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 1 of 121 (173321)
01-03-2005 6:46 AM


I would like to discuss what I see as some serious corruptions of the Old Testament texts by Christians attempting to ‘prove’ that Jesus was the messiah.
The most serious out-of-context quotes used by Christians are the so-called messianic prophecies that Jesus allegedly fulfilled so many of. Most of these alleged fulfilled prophecies can either be shown to be corrupted in some way, not present in the Old Testament texts, or apply to the majority of people and not specifically to one person.
I don’t want this to turn into some long list of ‘amazing prophecies fulfilled by Jesus’ type of thread that has happened on so many occasions here. I propose to discuss one alleged fulfilled prophecy at a time and then move on to another after the ‘brick wall’ has been reached.
Since it has been creeping into other treads and drawing them off topic, the first prophecy that I would like to discuss is the claim that Jesus was of Davidic descent and therefore a messianic candidate. I know there has been discussion of this before, but the threads have always been hopelessly drawn off topic or are too long to resurrect. I want this thread to concentrate on one specific claim at a time and not get dragged all over the place.
Now, we all know that the New Testament claims that Joseph was not Jesus’ father and it was in fact God Himself that fathered Jesus.
We also know that his mother Mary was supposed to have become pregnant even though she had never had sex with a man.
So, how does this affect Jesus’ messianic claims in relation to the messiah coming from the bloodline of David?
Well, first off, we can discard Joseph’s involvement as he is not the father of Jesus and the Bible specifically claims that it is the bloodline of David that is required.
The establishment of the Davidic bloodline is outlined in 2 Samuel 7:4-16:
That night the word of the LORD came to Nathan, saying: "Go and tell my servant David, 'This is what the LORD says: Are you the one to build me a house to dwell in? I have not dwelt in a house from the day I brought the Israelites up out of Egypt to this day. I have been moving from place to place with a tent as my dwelling. Wherever I have moved with all the Israelites, did I ever say to any of their rulers whom I commanded to shepherd my people Israel, "Why have you not built me a house of cedar?" '
"Now then, tell my servant David, 'This is what the LORD Almighty says: I took you from the pasture and from following the flock to be ruler over my people Israel. I have been with you wherever you have gone, and I have cut off all your enemies from before you. Now I will make your name great, like the names of the greatest men of the earth. And I will provide a place for my people Israel and will plant them so that they can have a home of their own and no longer be disturbed. Wicked people will not oppress them anymore, as they did at the beginning and have done ever since the time I appointed leaders over my people Israel. I will also give you rest from all your enemies.
" 'The LORD declares to you that the LORD himself will establish a house for you: When your days are over and you rest with your fathers, I will raise up your offspring to succeed you, who will come from your own body, and I will establish his kingdom. He is the one who will build a house for my Name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. I will be his father, and he will be my son. When he does wrong, I will punish him with the rod of men, with floggings inflicted by men. But my love will never be taken away from him, as I took it away from Saul, whom I removed from before you. Your house and your kingdom will endure forever before me ; your throne will be established forever.' "
We can see that God has promised that David’s dynasty will reign forever, and that it HAS to be a direct blood descendant of David’s who ‘will come from his body’. This is reinforced throughout the Old Testament, for example Psalm 132:11-12:
The LORD swore an oath to David, a sure oath that he will not revoke: "One of your own descendants I will place on your throne if your sons keep my covenant and the statutes I teach them, then their sons will sit on your throne for ever and ever.
The Old Testament clearly states that the messiah will be a direct descendant of David’s, and not an adopted son as many Christians mistakenly claim. Adopting someone does not make them of the same blood and it actually contradicts God’s promise to David. God states that the messiah will come from David’s own body and as Jesus did not have an earthly father, it is impossible for him to be the messiah. Think about it. By claiming that someone adopted by a descendant of David makes them a messianic candidate negates God’s promise that it would be a direct descendant. People who want adopted children to be possible messiahs have actually opened up the possibility that anyone at all could be the messiah, and directly contradict God’s word.
With the bloodline through Joseph nullified, the only other possibility that Jesus is descended from David would be through his mother Mary. Again, this is fraught with errors.
It is claimed that Mary’s genealogy is outlined in Luke chapter three. However, the New Testament never claims that this is Mary’s genealogy, it is quite clearly a different genealogy of Joseph. Look at the beginning of the text:
Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph, the son of Heli
The text is explicitly claiming that Joseph was the son of Heli, and not his son in law as many people claim.
How on earth can a genealogy of a man be taken through his father in law, unless you marry your sister, which would make your father in law your father as well?
There is no genealogy in the entire Bible, New and Old Testaments, that trace a man’s genealogy through his father in law, and this genealogy is no different.
But, Christians still insist that it is Mary’s linage that is in Luke, making her a descendant of David and hence giving Jesus a direct link, even though the New Testament never claims that Mary is the daughter of Heli.
The author’s of the New Testament never give us any reason to believe that Mary was descended from David, despite some obvious places where one would expect this information to be mentioned. For example, in Luke 1:26-27
In the sixth month, God sent the angel Gabriel to Nazareth, a town in Galilee, to a virgin pledged to be married to a man named Joseph, a descendant of David. The virgin's name was Mary.
It is Joseph’s Davidic descent that is mentioned here and not Mary’s. Why wouldn’t this verse emphasise that Mary was also descended from David? Why not say that Gabriel was 'sent to a virgin, a descendant of David' if her bloodline was to be of any use?
A cold hard fact is that Mary is never referred to anywhere in the New Testament as a descendant of David, while every possible reference to David is through Joseph.
Another example of this is in Luke 2:4-5:
So Joseph also went up from the town of Nazareth in Galilee to Judea, to Bethlehem the town of David, because he belonged to the house and line of David. He went there to register with Mary, who was pledged to be married to him and was expecting a child.
They went to Bethlehem because HE belonged to the house and line of David not because THEY belonged to the house and line of David!
But still Christians maintain that this is Mary’s genealogy.
If we ignore all the evidence and accept that this is Mary’s genealogy, then it actually does no good anyway, as Davidic descent passed through David’s son Solomon and not Nathan as hoped for by so many.
God makes it clear that it is Solomon’s line that will have the promise of eternal kingship.
2 Samuel 7:13
He is the one who will build a house for my Name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever.
Read in context, this reference clearly informs us that it is relating to one person. ‘He’ will build a house, ‘his’ kingdom forever. The ‘house for my name’ is the Temple built by Solomon, and it is Solomon’s kingdom that will be established forever. It doesn’t mention that ‘they’ will build a house, or I will establish ‘their’ kingdom forever, it is referring to a single person, and that person is Solomon. So, Nathan’s linage is irrelevant as it is not included in God’s promise to David.
That it is Solomon who is chosen by God is supported by 1 Chronicles 29:1:
Then King David said to the whole assembly: "My son Solomon, the one whom God has chosen, is young and inexperienced The task is great, because this palatial structure is not for man but for the LORD God.
Solomon was chosen to ‘build a house for God’s name’ not Nathan, and it is through the bloodline of builder of the Temple that the promise was made.
There is no way to link Jesus to David, the author of Matthew’s gospel effectively killed that off with his misunderstanding of Isaiah 7:14.
So, Christians, how do you establish a bloodline from Jesus to David?

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by 1.61803, posted 01-03-2005 2:55 PM Brian has not replied
 Message 7 by coffee_addict, posted 01-06-2005 7:48 PM Brian has not replied
 Message 8 by mike the wiz, posted 01-06-2005 8:52 PM Brian has replied

  
AdminDawg
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 121 (173433)
01-03-2005 12:50 PM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
1.61803
Member (Idle past 1504 days)
Posts: 2928
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004


Message 3 of 121 (173480)
01-03-2005 2:55 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Brian
01-03-2005 6:46 AM


Scrrreeeeecchhhhh!!!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Brian, posted 01-03-2005 6:46 AM Brian has not replied

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 4960 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 4 of 121 (174494)
01-06-2005 5:08 PM


When is a messianic prophecy not a messianic prophecy?
When it is in Isaiah 7:14.
The virgin birth prophecy is probably the claim that does the most disservice to the Old Testament.
The problems are very well-known, but I want to go through some of them and highlight exactly where Christians have corrupted the Old Testament texts once again.
It is necessary to read Isaiah 7:1-17 to get the background to the prophecy.
When Ahaz son of Jotham, the son of Uzziah, was king of Judah, King Rezin of Aram and Pekah son of Remaliah king of Israel marched up to fight against Jerusalem, but they could not overpower it.
Now the house of David was told, "Aram has allied itself with Ephraim"; so the hearts of Ahaz and his people were shaken, as the trees of the forest are shaken by the wind.
Then the LORD said to Isaiah, "Go out, you and your son Shear-Jashub, to meet Ahaz at the end of the aqueduct of the Upper Pool, on the road to the Washerman's Field. Say to him, 'Be careful, keep calm and don't be afraid. Do not lose heart because of these two smoldering stubs of firewood-because of the fierce anger of Rezin and Aram and of the son of Remaliah. Aram, Ephraim and Remaliah's son have plotted your ruin, saying, "Let us invade Judah; let us tear it apart and divide it among ourselves, and make the son of Tabeel king over it." Yet this is what the Sovereign LORD says:
" 'It will not take place, it will not happen, for the head of Aram is Damascus, and the head of Damascus is only Rezin. Within sixty-five years Ephraim will be too shattered to be a people. The head of Ephraim is Samaria, and the head of Samaria is only Remaliah's son. If you do not stand firm in your faith, you will not stand at all.' "
Again the LORD spoke to Ahaz, "Ask the LORD your God for a sign, whether in the deepest depths or in the highest heights."
But Ahaz said, "I will not ask; I will not put the LORD to the test."
Then Isaiah said, "Hear now, you house of David! Is it not enough to try the patience of men? Will you try the patience of my God also?
Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel. He will eat curds and honey when he knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right. But before the boy knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, the land of the two kings you dread will be laid waste. The LORD will bring on you and on your people and on the house of your father a time unlike any since Ephraim broke away from Judah-he will bring the king of Assyria."
The context is straightforward. There has been an alliance between Israel and Syria to overpower the kingdom of Judah. A sign that the alliance against Ahaz will fail is that a virgin will give birth to a son and before that boy is old enough to know right from wrong the alliance will be defeated.
Christians interpret this to foretell of Jesus’ birth about 700 years later and thus the fulfilment of yet another messianic prophecy for him.
In the Old Testament, Isaiah 7:14 is not viewed as a messianic prophecy, it is only seen as what it was meant for, a sign for king Ahaz that the alliance would fail.
How could the birth of Jesus 700 years later be a sign for Ahaz that the alliance would fail, it is ludicrous?
Christians imagine that the ‘virgin’ referred to in the prophecy is to be a girl who hasn’t had sex yet, however, this is not the meaning of the word translated incorrectly as ‘virgin’.
The word used in 7:14 is ‘almah’ and indicates an age range,
specifically ‘young girl’ and not whether that young girl is a virgin in the sexual sense or not.
If Isaiah meant that a sexual virgin would conceive and give birth to a son, then he would have used the word ‘bethulah’, which means virgin in the sexual sense.
Obviously the ‘almah’ could be a virgin, but the use of the word doesn’t explicitly inform us one way or another so if it was to be a sexual virgin that gave birth then Isaih would have used ‘bethulah’ so there would be no ambiguity about it at all. For example, Isaiah uses the word ‘bethulah’ in other verses in his book, 23:4,12, 37:22, 47:1, 62:5
There is one major problem that I very rarely see Christians addressing here, or even showing any sign that they are aware of this problem.
It centres on the fact that Christians claim that Jesus had a unique birth, but if Isaiah was speaking about a sexual virgin in 7:14 then there was a virgin birth in the Bible 700 years before Jesus appeared on the scene!
To have Isaiah talk of a sexual virgin conceiving and giving birth as a sign for Ahaz is to have a virgin birth long before Jesus as the woman in question gives birth to Immanuel in the next chapter.
Another problem here is that the child of the prophecy will need to be of a certain age before he knows the difference between right and wrong. This would imply that there was a time that Jesus didn’t know the difference between right and wrong and the possibility that he sinned would be a very real one.
So, the belief that Isaiah 7:14 was a messianic prophecy that foretold of Jesus’ birth is yet another corruption of the Old Testament.
The prophecy was obviously for Ahaz and a birth 700 years later would hardly be a sign for him.
If a virgin was supposed to have given birth as a sign for Ahaz, then Jesus’ birth is not unique.
Brian.

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by purpledawn, posted 01-06-2005 5:24 PM Brian has not replied
 Message 6 by PaulK, posted 01-06-2005 5:28 PM Brian has not replied
 Message 10 by Phat, posted 01-07-2005 8:35 AM Brian has not replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3458 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 5 of 121 (174499)
01-06-2005 5:24 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Brian
01-06-2005 5:08 PM


Immanuel
Very nice!
In the "cursed lineage" thread, I brought up a thought on the Immanuel issue.
It is something I have thought about before since neither child was actually name Immanuel.
Could you read my post and let me know if you think my conclusion is reasonable or too far of a stretch?
Thanks

A gentle answer turns away wrath, But a harsh word stirs up anger.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Brian, posted 01-06-2005 5:08 PM Brian has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 6 of 121 (174501)
01-06-2005 5:28 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Brian
01-06-2005 5:08 PM


Re: When is a messianic prophecy not a messianic prophecy?
Of course this has been discussed here before.
But there is one more problem:
The reference to eating"curds and honey" in 7:15 directly links to 7:21-25 indicating that this part of the prophecy, too must occur before the child is "knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right"
21 On that day one will keep alive a young cow and two sheep,
22 and will eat curds because of the abundance of milk that they give; for everyone that is left in the land shall eat curds and honey.
23 On that day every place where there used to be a thousand vines, worth a thousand shekels of silver, will become briers and thorns.
24 With bow and arrows one will go there, for all the land will be briers and thorns;
25 and as for all the hills that used to be hoed with a hoe, you will not go there for fear of briers and thorns; but they will become a place where cattle are let loose and where sheep tread.
Yet this neither happened in the days of Ahaz, nor in the early years of Jesus' life.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Brian, posted 01-06-2005 5:08 PM Brian has not replied

  
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 478 days)
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 7 of 121 (174525)
01-06-2005 7:48 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Brian
01-03-2005 6:46 AM


If god is omnipotent, why couldn't he have taken some sperm samples from David, put it on ice, and impregnated Mary with it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Brian, posted 01-03-2005 6:46 AM Brian has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Phat, posted 01-07-2005 8:53 AM coffee_addict has not replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 8 of 121 (174539)
01-06-2005 8:52 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Brian
01-03-2005 6:46 AM


The intelligence and accumulation of apparent erroneous positions, yet in truth correct positions, nevertheless hang on a few verses. Effectively you're saying that he can't have been the Messiah, but our very NT says otherwise so why should this bother us? Like Jesus - we go where the Spirit leads us, and our theology cannot be handpicked nor located.
The problem with your stance, is that you think one prophecy in Isaiah - is what our theology is based on, but it isn't. Yet we can't deal with other prophecies by your own words. Some scriptures can ONLY have described Christ. And there has been no other to have paid for our sin.
Isaiah is littered with scriptures about Christ foretold. Though ofcourse - I can't mention them. So I'll just say that it's illogical to say that our whole theology is brought down because of these things. It simply isn't IMHO. And you're simply wrong.
So this just doesn't outweigh all those other things we cannot mention, yet could only have pertained to Christ to have any relevance. So - it's no big deal to me as a Christian, as even Christ pointed at vague and singular verses and said they were relevant. Am I a lesser being? Ofcourse. So I can happily say that I am happy in that thing in which I allow.
I think Christ was more than man could expect, but who can list where the Spirit goes? Likewise - you won't be able to pin down our theology, nor defeat it. I suggest a better endeavour - is to understand it. You may be knowledgeable, but one basic premise of our theology you have failed to even acknowledge, is the premise of belief in the NT. How then can your accumulation of intelligent endeavours waxh hot, compared to our Spirits on fire?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Brian, posted 01-03-2005 6:46 AM Brian has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by mikehager, posted 01-06-2005 8:56 PM mike the wiz has replied
 Message 18 by Brian, posted 01-07-2005 12:20 PM mike the wiz has replied

  
mikehager
Member (Idle past 6467 days)
Posts: 534
Joined: 09-02-2004


Message 9 of 121 (174540)
01-06-2005 8:56 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by mike the wiz
01-06-2005 8:52 PM


The Old Testament
So, you're saying that some of the content of the old testament is wrong?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by mike the wiz, posted 01-06-2005 8:52 PM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by mike the wiz, posted 01-07-2005 8:46 AM mikehager has replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 10 of 121 (174629)
01-07-2005 8:35 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by Brian
01-06-2005 5:08 PM


Re: When is a messianic prophecy not a messianic prophecy?
Brian writes:
In the Old Testament, Isaiah 7:14 is not viewed as a messianic prophecy, it is only seen as what it was meant for, a sign for king Ahaz that the alliance would fail.
I dunno, Brian. How do we know the full intent of Biblical interpretation? I dug this up:
An unmarried young woman within the royal house would shortly marry and conceive. Her son would be called Immanuel ("God is with us"), probably in ignorance of the prophecy (which may have been given in the presence only of Ahaz) and possibly even as a presumptuous gesture to give the support of a complacent piety to the king's pro-Assyrian policy. Before the child is old enough to eat the characteristic food of the Land of Promise in its solid form (and so, if this is meant, well before the age of moral discretion), the Assyrians would lay waste the lands of Aram and Israel, which they
did in 733-732 B.C., only a year or two after the prophecy was given.
"The "sign" of the child, therefore, constitutes an indication that the all-sovereign and all-knowing God has the situation completely in hand, and it rebukes the king's lack of faith in him. It is true that the instrument of this devastation was to be Assyria, the very power Ahaz was courting instead of relying wholly on God. But in fact the events of 733-732 not only heralded the downfall in 722 of Samaria--the capital city of the northern kingdom that was a large part of the domain of the house of David in its earlier days--but within a generation led to the devastation of Judah itself (cf. 1:7).
"The prophecy was given to the house of David and not simply to Ahaz ("you" in v. 14 is plural). In the fullness of time, the messianic Child would be born of that house. He was to be a symbol of God's salvation of his people, not simply from physical foes like Rezin and Pekah, but ultimately from sin (cf. Matt 1:21). He represents the final purpose of God in his person as well as his work. For he is, in fullness of meaning, God with us; and his mother was a virgin at the time of her conception and not simply, as in the case of the earlier royal mother, at the time of the prophecy. Matthew's concept of fulfillment is very wide-ranging and flexible and embraces many different kinds of correspondence between an OT passage and a NT event (cf. G.W. Grogan, "The New Testament Interpretation of the Old Testament," Tyndale Bulletin 18 [1967]:54-59).
It is not as if the OT is merely a straightforward historical narrative. These scriptures had some deeper meanings for the people. The reading of the day was all connected with religious wisdom for the Jewish people. It was not as if the ancient scribes were merely recording history. Knowledge of the time was limited of course, but the Jews of that time were largely religious and not secular with their writings.
Keep going, though. Lets talk about EACH so called Messianic prophecy. I say that we leave them inconclusive. I would rather that you not attempt to build an argument from one to another, and I will not trot out the tired counter arguments from those illiterate Christian apologists! Lets simply take each prophecy and comment on it. That was my comment on Isaiah 7:14. NEXT?
This message has been edited by Phatboy, 01-07-2005 06:38 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Brian, posted 01-06-2005 5:08 PM Brian has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by PaulK, posted 01-07-2005 8:48 AM Phat has replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 11 of 121 (174636)
01-07-2005 8:46 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by mikehager
01-06-2005 8:56 PM


Re: The Old Testament
The opposite.
If God says to me, "I will bring you a son of your body, and he shall glorify God with a mighty hand". And then - ten years later, I received a son of adoption, who increased and glorified God, was then God a liar? I trow not, but that events never come in the shape or form we expect. Did they expect Christ to come as a king with pomp? Or did he come as a servant?
Logic and reason cannot locate the Spirit.
So if you see corruption of the OT - then you know that blindness has came to you, if these things are explained. As reason and logic were never the deciphering quality, needed to explain mysteries. Thus Paul who was Saul can tell you the rest.
This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 01-07-2005 08:50 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by mikehager, posted 01-06-2005 8:56 PM mikehager has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by mikehager, posted 01-07-2005 11:56 AM mike the wiz has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 12 of 121 (174637)
01-07-2005 8:48 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by Phat
01-07-2005 8:35 AM


Re: When is a messianic prophecy not a messianic prophecy?
THe problem with the interpretation you quote is that it offers absoluely no reason as to why a small part of that prophecy should be ripped out of context and regarded as referring to a second event as well. I can't see that this is a rational procedure for interpreting a text.
So I think we have to conclude that this prophecy can't be rationally seen as referring to Jesus without presupposing Christian doctrine (and therefore completely worthless as an argument FOR Christian doctrine).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Phat, posted 01-07-2005 8:35 AM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by mike the wiz, posted 01-07-2005 8:53 AM PaulK has replied
 Message 22 by Phat, posted 01-07-2005 1:39 PM PaulK has replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 13 of 121 (174640)
01-07-2005 8:53 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by coffee_addict
01-06-2005 7:48 PM


Lam writes:
If god is omnipotent, why couldn't he have taken some sperm samples from David, put it on ice, and impregnated Mary with it?
If god is omnipotent, why couldn't he have taken some sperm samples from David, put it on ice, and impregnated Mary with it?
He could have, as He can do all things...but why use Davids tainted D.N.A. when divine impartation is a better option? Do you doubt the possibility of infinite purpose?
Or do you dismiss a belief in God while holding to a hope of mankind attaining heights which may approach infinite potential in an unmeasured future?
This message has been edited by Phatboy, 01-07-2005 06:55 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by coffee_addict, posted 01-06-2005 7:48 PM coffee_addict has not replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 14 of 121 (174641)
01-07-2005 8:53 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by PaulK
01-07-2005 8:48 AM


Re: When is a messianic prophecy not a messianic prophecy?
Rubbish.
We don't hold that one scripture proves Christ - but many. And many the more point to him, and have only described him. Thus your rational procedure - is one of assertion, to no end.
For the many outdo the few - and the few you cling on to, are desperate reminders of your impulse of wrongful endeavours. You're straining at a nat - and swallowing a camel.
This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 01-07-2005 08:54 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by PaulK, posted 01-07-2005 8:48 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by PaulK, posted 01-07-2005 9:05 AM mike the wiz has replied
 Message 57 by ramoss, posted 01-14-2005 5:41 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 15 of 121 (174648)
01-07-2005 9:05 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by mike the wiz
01-07-2005 8:53 AM


Re: When is a messianic prophecy not a messianic prophecy?
Firstly Mike,even if there were other valid prophecies they would not change my analysis of this case.
Secondly I have not made any claim which justifies your assertiosns about me. Pure assertion is your way.
Thirdly if you did have lots of valid prophecies you ought to ask yourself why people even bother to use this one as evidence that Jesus was the Messiah. AND if you think that they ought to be discussed you ought to do it instead of just asserting that they exist.
Thirdly you make take the attitude that anything you don't like is "rubbish" but that simply shows that you are irrational.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by mike the wiz, posted 01-07-2005 8:53 AM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by mike the wiz, posted 01-07-2005 12:20 PM PaulK has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024